Using training to build a legal defense is a topic that receives significant coverage. It’s also a topic that is often not well understood. Unfortunately, mistakes happen and they can be costly.

A complex web of federal and state laws and agency guidance impose EEO, and compliance and ethics training requirements on employers of all sizes. Some are mandatory, and some are basically mandatory. But what’s the difference and does it matter?

Mandated training: Training is actually mandated by law.

Business Essential Training: When laws and regulations require employers to demonstrate that they have acted in good faith to establish a legal defense.

Most training obligations in the employment law arena fall under the second category. (To see a summary of the key legal defenses click here).

The reality is, however, that either way, an organization is exposed if they fail to train employees or if they take a check-the-box approach to training. Because, let’s face it, at some point every employer will be faced with lawsuit where having a defense will make all the difference. In Bains v. ARCO Prods. Co., employees were originally awarded $1 million in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages for failing to train on harassment. See 405 F.3d 764 (9th Cir., 2005). Similarly, in Swinton v. Potomac Corporation, an employee was awarded a punitive damage award of $1 million because the employer did not provide managers with training. See 270 F.3d 794 (9th Cir., 2001).

An Unexpected Twist—You Failed to Train Me!
Typically, employees groan and moan when told they need to take a compliance course or attend a training session. But here’s a training twist that relatively new. An employee (or in this case a mayor) actually claims that he engaged in harassment because he wasn’t trained.

San Diego Mayor Filner is accused of sexual harassment (eight women say he sexually harassed them). In August of 2013 the mayor’s lawyer made the outlandish claim that it’s the city’s fault that he harassed these women… because the city did not provide the mayor with harassment training. As a result, the lawyer claims, the city and not the Mayor should be liable for damages that flow from his sexually offensive behavior.

So now, you not only need to provide training to build a legal defense against a plaintiff, you may need it to protect yourself from an employee or manager facing personal liability.

Defense Fundamentals
While legal standards may vary (and they do!) building a compliance-based defense boils down to some common techniques and strategies. Courts and juries are looking to reward organizations that make a real, good-faith effort to comply with the laws and get their employees to do the same. Good faith is not a one-time push exercise – it’s really a push, interact, pull, and push again exercise.

Some of the most commonly accepted techniques include:

Have robust, organization-specific policies

Ensure that policies are distributed (to everyone in your organization) on a regular basis and employees attest to them

Provide robust and periodic training that is topic specific

Have a reporting mechanism that really works

Consistently and fairly enforce the rules

Be vigilant against retaliation

Regularly monitor, audit, and improve your program

Giving it a good effort, is not enough. These obligations are ongoing and evolving. Missing one of these steps can be catastrophic for your organization.

Learn From The Mistakes of Others
Many employers have tried to build a defense relying on a “good enough is enough” mentality. Unfortunately, their efforts are not well rewarded by juries or judges. And mistakes can lead to jury verdicts in the millions of dollars.

So what are some of the most common mistakes? I highlight 4 key ones below.

Mistake 1: Assuming That A Policy Alone is Enough
When it comes to policies, the game has changed. Employers cannot rely on a policy grabbed from the internet. The policy needs to be customized to fit their organization and it must be current. An outdated policy from 1938 just won’t cut it. And once you have a solid policy, you have to actually tell people about it.

It seems so simple, but employers do miss this important step. In Miller v. Kenworth of Dothan(11th Cir., 2002), the employer paid out $25,000 for "malice and reckless indifference" because of ineffective employment policies and because they failed to tell their managers about the policies. InGriffin v. City of Opa- Locka, et al. (11th Cir., 2001), the result was even worse for the employer. A jury awarded $1.5 million plus $500,000 of additional damages to a former employee because the city had no policy and no training.

Mistake 2: Assuming That All Training Is Created Equal
Training is another area where missteps can cause huge problems. Employers sometimes think that it doesn’t matter what the training is like; they just need to check-the-box. But don’t make this mistake—don’t assume that all training is created equal. It’s not. Training that helps you check-the-box will not curry favor with juries or judges, or enforcement agencies, or help you build a legal defense.

When vetting training options, ensure that the content and how it is being delivered is contemporary and interactive, and legally vetted. And ensure that managers receive specialized training that teaches them about their unique responsibilities.

Mistake 3: Assuming that Silence Is Golden
Many organizations still fear employee reports, assuming that chatter about inappropriate behavior is a bad thing. The reality couldn’t be further from the truth. Employers should encourage employees to speak up, and should have a formal and well-communicated process for doing so. It’s much easier and more efficient to handle an issue when it is small and manageable. And thestats tell us, that even if you aren’t hearing about harassment (or for that matter other employment law issues) nearly 30% of your employees have experienced it.

Set up a complaint process, and allow employees to come directly to HR or corporate with their concerns. Don’t be afraid to encourage employees to use your ethics or help line. Today, most of the calls coming into employer ethics lines are HR related calls. In fact, 69% of helpline calls are related to HR, diversity, and workplace respect issues. And make sure that Managers have a true open door policy, and they know how to properly handle an employee complaint.

If your process breaks down and isn’t effective, you’ll have a hard time establishing a defense under federal and state law. A Texas jury (Waffle House, Inc. v. Williams, 314 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. App., 2007)) awarded an employee $400,000 in past compensatory damages, $25,000 in future compensatory damages, and $3,460,000 in punitive damages (eventually lowered to $425K by judge per law) after she was sexually harassed by her manager. A key fact that led to this verdict, despite the employee’s repeated reports, management failed to handle her complaints properly. And because her complaints weren’t processed properly, her issues never made it to corporate headquarters.

Mistake 4: Assuming That You Only Have to Train 1 Time
Training is a large budget item. It’s not just the cost of the program, but also the seat time costs that add up. Assuming that it’s okay to deliver training one time, however, is a monumental mistake. Employees and managers need periodic reminders about your policies, procedures, and how to make complaints.

Periodic training for managers has been the law in California since AB1825 was adopted. It has also long been the position of the EEOC that Employers should provide employees and managers with periodic training. See EEOC Enforcement Guidance: Vicarious Liability for Unlawful Harassment By Supervisors, No. 915.002, June 18, 1999). And in Romano v. U-Haul International, punitive damages were available because the employer did not have "an active mechanism for renewing employees' awareness of the policies through...specific education programs." 233 F.3d 655 (1st Cir. 2000).

In fact periodic training is becoming the norm rather than the exception in the broader compliance space. See 2004 Federal Sentencing Guideline, Section 8B2.1(b)(4)(A). Morgan Stanley was rewarded with a non-prosecution agreement, in part because of its robust compliance program which included regular electronic and other training.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

- hide

Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.